Page 2 of 10

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:50 am
by stahrwe
johnson1010 wrote:Sam Harris is good peeps.
Very glad to hear that. Here is the text of an email I just sent to SH through his website contact form.
The Cleveland Children's home is requesting individuals make contributions so that they can provide Christmas presents to its residents. CCH is a residence for severely abused and neglected children. I was told that Sam Harris is 'Good Peeps' so I thought you might be interested in making a contribution to the CCH. Thank you for your consideration.
I didn't reference Johnson1010, or Booktalk.org or Chris, just an invitation for SH to share some of the money he has made off criticizing Christianity with some deserving kids.

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:20 am
by geo
DWill wrote:Whoa! Back to Sam Harris' book. I think he gets many things right in that first chapter. I like the way he doesn't just come down upon "religion," but on the fact that so many of the world's people believe that God wrote a book, and unfortunately for us there is more than one book. His argument about the value of religious moderates I'd like to discuss, but I'll first ask if anyone thinks he's ratcheting up the fear a bit. This may sound like a strange question in view of 9/11 and other attacks, and the technological opportunities for greater mayhem. It's not so much that the fears are unjustified, as it is where this kind of rhetoric may take us. Does it lead to preemptive war, major erosion of civil liberties, waterboarding and other torture, all in the name of keeping us safe? Are all the conceivable measures we might put in place to keep us safe worth the price?
I had stated previously that I had read Ch. 1, but that was an exaggeration. I'm still reading it.

Sam Harris is very persuasive and his writing in this first chapter is excellent. He points to how we look through rose-colored glasses with regard to our various holy texts. Or, more likely, most folks are simply not aware of the fragmented, disjointed sources that comprise the Christian Bible.
Sam Harris wrote:The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them.
That is well stated, isn't it? It is amazing how religious beliefs have fallen so far off the map of critical thinking. Harris sets up a couple of thought experiments to illustrate this point. For example, imagine that a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century was revived.
Sam Harris wrote:The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning (drilling holes into the skull) constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago—while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate—or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.
This kind of goes back to what I was trying to say on another thread. What has theology given the human race except imaginary details about an imaginary God? While science has forged ahead and given us actual knowledge about the world we live in, theology and religion have given us nothing at all, at least in terms of real world data. The man from the fourteenth century would know much of the same religious dogma that we have today which somehow gets passed down from generation to generation without anyone questioning it. That people to this day continue to accept this stuff on faith, I think, is scary for the human race. This is one gaping large blind spot.

So Harris is very convincing, but like Dawkins his criticisms of Christianity and Islam focus on only their most rigid, Fundamentalist forms. I would suggest that in America at least that most people who consider themselves Christians are much more moderate in their beliefs. To maintain extreme Fundamentalist views requires, as Harris says, "an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained." I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the religious landscape in America is already changing very rapidly. The new crop of atheist books are a testament to this.

One of Harris' main arguments in this chapter is that moderates, by their very staunch defense of freedom of belief, are allowing the religious craziness to continue. I'm not sure about this. I still think a positive, pro-science approach will always work better than mocking or condemning people's beliefs. Considering our religious heritage which still very much permeates through our culture, and to accept that our sense in something mystical might be genetically based, what more can we do? Yes, we absolutely must draw the line at preventing religious dogma from entering our educational and political systems, but a certain degree of patience is called for as well. There are many foundational aspects of Christianity that we rely on without really thinking about.

Something Harris said once I think does a very good job at getting people to stop for a minute and actually think about their beliefs. He said that everyone is an atheist with regards to other people's gods. For example, Christians are atheists with regards to the Greek deities or to Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. And Harris says he is just an atheist to one more degree. This really illustrates what "atheist" means in a way that really defuses the word's negative connotations.

More later. This is a long chapter.

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:26 am
by stahrwe
geo wrote:
DWill wrote:Whoa! Back to Sam Harris' book. I think he gets many things right in that first chapter. I like the way he doesn't just come down upon "religion," but on the fact that so many of the world's people believe that God wrote a book, and unfortunately for us there is more than one book. His argument about the value of religious moderates I'd like to discuss, but I'll first ask if anyone thinks he's ratcheting up the fear a bit. This may sound like a strange question in view of 9/11 and other attacks, and the technological opportunities for greater mayhem. It's not so much that the fears are unjustified, as it is where this kind of rhetoric may take us. Does it lead to preemptive war, major erosion of civil liberties, waterboarding and other torture, all in the name of keeping us safe? Are all the conceivable measures we might put in place to keep us safe worth the price?
I had stated previously that I had read Ch. 1, but that was an exaggeration. I'm still reading it.

Instead of re-reading SH, why don't you take a trip off the reservation and read: What if Jesus had Never Been Born, by James Kennedy.

As for your last paragraph, you really lost it there.

Sam Harris is very persuasive and his writing in this first chapter is excellent. He points to how we look through rose-colored glasses with regard to our various holy texts. Or, more likely, most folks are simply not aware of the fragmented, disjointed sources that comprise the Christian Bible.
Sam Harris wrote:The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them.
That is well stated, isn't it? It is amazing how religious beliefs have fallen so far off the map of critical thinking. Harris sets up a couple of thought experiments to illustrate this point. For example, imagine that a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century was revived.
Sam Harris wrote:The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning (drilling holes into the skull) constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago—while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate—or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.
This kind of goes back to what I was trying to say on another thread. What has theology given the human race except imaginary details about an imaginary God? While science has forged ahead and given us actual knowledge about the world we live in, theology and religion have given us nothing at all, at least in terms of real world data. The man from the fourteenth century would know much of the same religious dogma that we have today which somehow gets passed down from generation to generation without anyone questioning it. That people to this day continue to accept this stuff on faith, I think, is scary for the human race. This is one gaping large blind spot.

So Harris is very convincing, but like Dawkins his criticisms of Christianity and Islam focus on only their most rigid, Fundamentalist forms. I would suggest that in America at least that most people who consider themselves Christians are much more moderate in their beliefs. To maintain extreme Fundamentalist views requires, as Harris says, "an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained." I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the religious landscape in America is already changing very rapidly. The new crop of atheist books are a testament to this.

One of Harris' main arguments in this chapter is that moderates, by their very staunch defense of freedom of belief, are allowing the religious craziness to continue. I'm not sure about this. I still think a positive, pro-science approach will always work better than mocking or condemning people's beliefs. Considering our religious heritage which still very much permeates through our culture, and to accept that our sense in something mystical might be genetically based, what more can we do? Yes, we absolutely must draw the line at preventing religious dogma from entering our educational and political systems, but a certain degree of patience is called for as well.

Something Harris said once I think does a very good job at getting people to stop for a minute and actually think about their beliefs. He said that everyone is an atheist with regards to other people's gods. For example, Christians are atheists with regards to the Greek deities or to Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. And Harris says he is just an atheist to one more degree. This really illustrates what "atheist" means in a way that really defuses the word's negative connotations.

More later. This is a long chapter.
The reason you think SH is so wonderful is that he feeds your prejudice. The statements your report about religous people appearing backward is unsupported. Your response to it is like being at a pep rally. As for what theology has given the world, if we are talking about Christianity, I have listed many of the benefits before:

All of the sciences benefitted from church sponsored individuals.
Many of the early scientists made their discoveries in a desire to obtain a greater appreciation for the creation of God.
Music
Art
Architecture
Hospitals
Care for widows, orphans and the handicapped
Education, in the United States alone, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, among others were founded to foster the education of preachers.

You can continue to tow the Atheist Myth line that religion is bad, but I will continue to challenge it and point out that it is wrong.

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:33 am
by johnson1010
I do agree with Harris in his critique of moderate religion. They are the enablers who let the crazy get away with being crazy.

At the same time, moderates, by virtue of not really thinking about their religion are the best candidates to shrug off this superstition through actually studying what their religion says with a critical eye.

Just like alcoholics, though, the religious need to want to change themselves. You can't make anyone change their mind about it. You have to provide information, some interesting questions, and show the flaws of magical thinking, but that won't chnage their minds. That is the beauty of faith. It makes people impervious to rational discourse about those things they have faith in.

I know of three people who were fence sitters. They finally jumped ship and decided to look at religion critically. It seemed like right before they made those decisions is when they wanted to hear what i have to say about religion the least. Perhaps fearing that final push over the edge, hoping to delay what must have become the inevitable at that point.

I know of two other people who are acting like that now. They don't want to hear about religion, because if they thought about it, they know that they would be unable to hold that belief, and they don't want to deal with that change right now.

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:34 pm
by geo
stahrwe wrote:You can continue to tow the Atheist Myth line that religion is bad, but I will continue to challenge it and point out that it is wrong.
Stahrwe, you really are a one-trick pony. I have never said that Christianity is all bad. I have noted many times on these forums that good things have come from religion. But since we are talking about Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith, the negative aspects of religion naturally come up. For those who have an open mind, it is readily apparent that that what is bad about religion is pretty bad. You are a good example of this, a man in the year 2010 who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. As Sam Harris points out, people are dying all around the world due to this very kind of mindless devotion to ancient ideology. It is dangerous and cannot go unchallenged.

These "Christian" traditions of helping others can continue without anyone having to buy into the magical thinking that goes with it. In fact, arguably this is already happening in America on a grand scale. People are helping others with barely a nod to the religious myths that helped start them.

Your vitriol of Sam Harris is obviously not based on honest or thoughtful reflection of his arguments, but merely mindless rationalization of your religious beliefs. You aren't even reading his book, so why are you here?

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:40 pm
by geo
By the way, for those who are thinking about reading The End of Faith, here are the first ten pages.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-one/

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:43 pm
by stahrwe
geo wrote:By the way, for those who haven't committed yet to read The End of Faith, here are the first ten pages.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-one/
Is the entire book available online at no cost?

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:30 pm
by geo
stahrwe wrote:
geo wrote:By the way, for those who haven't committed yet to read The End of Faith, here are the first ten pages.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-one/
Is the entire book available online at no cost?
By God, no. What a charlatan. He's actually charging money for the book he wrote.

How about your What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Available online at no cost?

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:38 pm
by stahrwe
geo wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
geo wrote:By the way, for those who haven't committed yet to read The End of Faith, here are the first ten pages.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-one/
Is the entire book available online at no cost?
By God, no. What a charlatan. He's actually charging money for the book he wrote.

How about your What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Available online at no cost?
I have no desire to add to SH's income by purchasing his book new. Nor do I want to increase his book rating by purchasing a used copy. And I really am not interested in even incrementally increasing his circulation figures by borrowing a copy from the library.

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:28 pm
by DWill
Harris' attack (too strong a word?) on moderates is a point that seems to distinguish him from other critics of religion, who mainly target the most devout. Being of a moderate temperament myself, I resist his thinking here, but concede that his argument can't just be dismissed. It does seem to be true that moderates will have a hard time condemning crazies because the crazies are still, for all their misguidedness, part of the flock. And to condemn them might bring moderates a little too close for their own comfort to an examination of the core beliefs of the faith. Unlike johnson, I don't think that moderates generally do examine their religion much; they don't want to look at the wider picture of the effects faith can have.

Harris doesn't respect moderates because they've become moderates only by ignoring parts of their own scriptures. He views this as a dishonesty, I believe. But I think that Harris shows himself to be what Robert Wright called a scriptural determinist. That is, whatever is written in the holy books determines belief. Sounds logical, but Wright points out that it doesn't work that way "on the ground," which is actually always shifting in terms of what scriptures will be highlighted and which will be left to molder. A lack of consistency with scripture is precisely what we want to see.

So I think moderates overall have a good effect, just for being moderates. It may be true that they don't do much in terms of influencing the bad elements, but then again they probably have more of a chance to do this than do people who can't stomach religion. The change that will come will be incremental and it will be helped along if we engage religious people across the spectrum, not just castigate them, as geo said.

Harris says that it will take more than building schools and hospitals to defeat radicalism, but he doesn't say explicitly what that 'more' is. Does he really believe in measures such as these, or does he feel that the only viable road is confrontation? Sure, religion often compels behavior, but Harris may see that influence as more intransigent that it actually is. Reportedly, the Saudis have have success in deprogramming their radical terrorists.

I agree that the writing is near-brilliant, a rhetorical tour de force. I also see Harris as offering a strong positive vision, not just tearing something down. This is good, but the drawback is a certain utopian quality I see in him, which for me, as a moderate, is a red flag. We'll have arrived in a new promised land when everyone takes a rational view of the big questions, I see him as implying. But this reign of rationality will never happen, and instead we're going to have to settle for co-existence with religion.